NewsWrap
for the week ending July 24, 2004
(As broadcast on This Way Out program #852, distributed 7-26-04)
[Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex
Wockner, and Greg Gordon]
Anchored this week by Dean Elzinga and Cindy Friedman
(U.S. Congressmember Tammy Baldwin:)
"With this bill we face no less than the specter of a sign posted on the
Federal courthouse door which reads, "You may not defend your constitutional
rights in this court; you may not seek equal protection here; you may not
petition your government for redress here." Today the "you" is gay and lesbian
American citizens, but who will be next?"
Despite that warning from openly lesbian U.S. Congressmember Tammy Baldwin, a
Wisconsin Democrat, the U.S. House of Representatives this week approved the
so-called Marriage Protection Act -- a bill to prohibit federal courts from
considering Constitutional challenges to state laws denying legal recognition to
same-gender marriages. The move reflects conservative fears that the 1996
so-called Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA -- which in part authorizes the states
to refuse to recognize another state's legal same-gender marriages -- might be
struck down as violating the U.S. Constitution. The 54% majority for the
current Marriage Protection Act, or MPA, came in a largely party-line vote, but
some 13% of Democrats joined most Republicans in support and about 7% of
Republicans and an independent joined most Democrats in opposition.
Republican President George W. Bush apparently supports the measure,
although like some religious right activists he appears to view it as a stopgap
until the U.S. Constitution can be amended against marriages of gay and lesbian
couples. That proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was killed by a Senate
procedural vote last week, and supporters of marriage equality took heart that the
House majority for the Marriage Protection Act fell well short of the
two-thirds supermajority a Constitutional amendment would require. The Senate will not
immediately take up the MPA as the legislature now begins a six-week recess,
and some doubt the MPA will reach the Senate floor this year.
Leading the charge for the MPA was Wisconsin Republican and House Judiciary
Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner:
"... a lot of people will also argue against this bill saying that the danger
is not there. I am here to say that the danger is real. Just 2 days ago, a
lesbian couple married in Massachusetts filed the first lawsuit in a Florida
Federal court to set Federal precedent and to strike down DOMA's protection
that allows States not to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in
Massachusetts... The threat that is posed to traditional marriage by a handful of
Federal judges whose decisions can have an impact across State boundaries has
renewed concern about abuse of power from the Federal judiciary... Integral to the
American constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility
to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches."
Yet the bill's opponents insisted that it's the MPA itself that's
overreaching. As American Civil Liberties Union spokesperson Christopher Anders
succinctly put it, "Last week, the Senate rejected amending the Constitution, but
today the House voted to violate it." He referred to both the Constitutional
principle of separation of powers and the Constitutional right to equal protection
under the law. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported that,
"[W]e are not aware of any precedent for a law that would deny the inferior
federal courts original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate
jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress."
And that was part of the opposition expressed by openly gay Massachusetts
Democrat Barney Frank:
"There is no case in American history of this language: you cannot decide any
question pertaining to the validity under the Constitution. This is the
first time we have said, not that it will not be litigated, but it will not be
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What you are doing here, you are not
repealing anything except the Constitution by going back to the Articles of
Confederation."
Frank's biggest fear was that prohibiting federal judicial review would
become routine:
"Once you establish this as the way you show your fealty to a principle, it
will be demanded with regard to everything else. This will become boilerplate.
So on issue after issue we will pass legislation, and we will say, but it
cannot be questioned by the Supreme Court."
Also on the House floor, declaring marriage to be under attack, numerous
Republicans repeated their now standard rhetoric against "activist" judges.
Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern noted they made no such complaints when a
bare majority of the Supreme Court blocked the 2000 Florida recount to give Bush
the Presidency. And Frank mocked them, saying,
"... the courts presumably made up of aliens that you have appointed in many
cases..."
And in fact Republican judicial appointees include six of the seven members
of the highest court in his home state of Massachusetts, who have been so much
maligned for finding that state's constitution requires marriage equality for
same-gender couples.
The lone openly gay Republican Congressmember, Arizonan Jim Kolbe, voted
against the bill, although he did not speak on the floor.
And off the floor, former Republican Congressmember for Georgia Bob Barr -- a
staunch conservative who was DOMA's lead sponsor -- told a national meeting
of state lawmakers that MPA is "dangerous," and repeated his equally strong
opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
But there was no DOMA-like rider as the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved annual federal funding for the city of Washington, D.C.
Virginia Republican Jo Ann Davis had previously introduced a bill to stop the capital
city from recognizing or creating legal same-gender marriages, and similar
language was expected to become a condition of Washington receiving the federal
funds that make up the bulk of its income. But because House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay wanted energies focused on the MPA and Federal Marriage Amendment,
he asked Congressional Republicans to leave the issue out of the city's
appropriations. For a decade Congress used a rider to block the city's domestic
partnership ordinance, only letting it go into effect two years ago.
Openly gay politicians made headlines in other nations this week as well.
In Canada, Scott Brison became the first-ever openly gay national Cabinet
minister, as he was sworn in to head Public Works. After a failed run for
leadership of the Conservative Party, the Member of Parliament for Nova Scotia
switched his allegiance to the ruling Liberals in December and was quickly given a
post as a parliamentary secretary. His Kings-Hants constituency were
apparently unaffected by his change of party, giving him an easy victory in the recent
elections. In his new role, the former investment banker will manage 14,000
employees and 40,000 contracts worth C$10-billion per year.
The gay man who was forced to resign from the British Cabinet not once but
twice is back in a high-profile political role once more. Peter Mandelson,
generally credited as the architect of the ruling Labour Party's success in
1997 and since, will be the U.K.'s new European Commissioner. Britain is being
reduced from 2 European Commissioners to one with the expansion of the European
Union to 25 nations. Mandelson's appointment this week by Prime Minister
Tony Blair was not universally welcomed even within the Labour Party, but it
ended speculation that he would be given yet another Cabinet post.
First a Cabinet Minister Without Portfolio in 1997 following the Labour
landslide that ended a long Tory reign, in 1998 Mandelson was given the prestigious
role of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He had to leave that post
that same year in a scandal over a home loan he'd accepted from another
politician that appeared to create a conflict of interest. Blair brought him back
as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1999, but in 2001 Mandelson was
again forced to resign in another scandal as he appeared to have influenced
passport processing for a wealthy family. Mandelson still believes he was
treated unfairly, but reportedly opposition within the party blocked another return
to the Cabinet this year.
Blair said, "We need the very best person representing Britain in Europe and
Peter Mandelson has the skills, ability and contacts in Europe to make a great
success of it." Mandelson expressed enthusiasm for the new work he's
expected to begin November 1st.
And there was quite a stir in Germany as the leader of a small conservative
opposition party was "outed" more or less voluntarily. The Free Democrats'
Guido Westerwelle last week took Michael Mronz with him to a big birthday bash
for the leader of the largest Opposition party, the anti-gay Christian
Democrats. This week the two were shown in a front-page photo in the tabloid "Bild"
with the banner, "Westerwelle loves this man." "Bild" presented the men as
partners, including details such as vacations they took together. All
Westerwelle would tell reporters seeking confirmation was, "I am living my own life and
I won't say anything more about it." Westerwelle is said to be hoping to be
Germany's foreign minister if conservatives win the next federal elections.
There is even speculation that the "outing" is a ploy to soften his image as a
welfare opponent -- and that might lead one to join in asking, as "Bild" did
in pink lettering, "How gay is Germany?" Curiously, news reports that recalled
the relatively recent comings-out of Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit and Hamburg
Mayor Ole von Beust seemed to have forgotten the Green Party's openly gay
parliamentary justice spokesperson and long-time activist Volker Beck.
And finally... Queen Elizabeth's official proxy in Australia,
Governor-General Michael Jeffery, spoke this week to a crowd of hundreds at a Family Expo
in Brisbane, organized by the Family Council of Queensland. He was interrup
ted when gay activists Jeff Poole and Jeff Cheverton unrolled a banner and
kissed, eliciting gasps from the conservative crowd. Poole told the Australian
Associated Press that he "want[ed] to bear witness that the family is not owned
by religious fundamentalists." But Cheverton added, "If the Governor-General
is the Queen's representative in Australia, he did not do a very good job of
representing queens today."